There's more right? Right?! That can't be all of it...

Huh! I think this is the first isekai I've read where the reincarnate co-exists with her host. It's usually a sorta 'overwrite' thing.

I know of two others at least.

Isekai Soudouki has a samurai and a modern otaku act as the cheerleading squad for the main character, who is the native soul of the body and is in control (aside from the samurai occasionally taking over for stronger enemies).

There is also Two As One Princess, in which the protagonist is possessing a girl and they basically travel around the world doing isekai stuff. It's marked as gender bender and shoujo ai, but given that there is only one body and one of the two is a sexless ghost (uses female mannerisms early on to reassure the little girl he possesses, not sure about after that cuz I stopped reading after a while).

Haunted Duke's Daughter is possibly a third. though I'm not sure what the actual deal is, as far as I've seen translated. Sakura (possible reincarted/transmigrated entity, possible Japanese schoolgirl) seems to live inside the mind of Lilia (Villainess who met the Downfall, but avoided the standard consequences). Sakura does not seem to have the ability to take over Lilia's body (or at least, she hasn't used it to the point I've read), only to share her senses, and offer teaching and advice.

"I Won't Become a Villainess. I'm Just a Normal Duke's Daugher!" also has the reincarnate co-existing with her host. Although at first the original soul is hiding away, the part where they agree to work together is super heartfelt.

Oof, this one hits close to home. Sexism is so normalized sometimes that one really has to emphasize it to even get a reaction. Most of the time, people don't even blink at the most ridiculous of bikini armor.

I like the way Laplace's dialogue is written in the translation. I don't know if she uses an unusual mode of speaking in the original text, but her speech kinda reminds me of Greg from Over the Garden Wall. It's like a mishmash of various old-timey dialects but without any over-complex parts.

Also, I wonder... does Laplace know the causal outcome of every future event? Arguably it's worse than being able to violate the second law of thermodynamics like Maxwell, simply because even if you know the causal outcome of every future event, you're necessarily unable to change the course of events at that point. :D (I sincerely hope other people know what I'm talking about.)

@icekatze yes but I would say ALL relationships STILL go through the fight and make up stage- its gonna happen before you get to know each other well enough to have done much bond strengthening. Its bound to happen in those first few years as you get to know each other and learn.

Any time one gets multiple people together, there are bound to be disagreements. But whether those disagreements quality as a fight depends on how the people express themselves and what one's definition of a fight is. I mean, there's there's a difference between what counts as an argument on the Jerry Springer Show, and what counts as an argument in debate club. Cheerleaders may shout out "fight!" during a sporting event, but it's a very different kind of fight than a drunken brawl.

In my understanding, in order to qualify as a fight, a disagreement needs at least one of the following:
• Physical violence
• Threats
• Shouting
• Speaking with the deliberate intent to cause emotional distress
• Name calling or personal attacks
• Arguing in bad faith (gaslighting, doing whatever it takes to get the last word, etc.)

Acting passive aggressively after giving up on reaching an understanding might count in some cases too, but that partially depends on people's expectations for the relationship. People who are only casually in a relationship don't necessarily need to reach an understanding on a lot of things. But people really ought to be able to address their differences without resorting to any of the above.

I'm not saying having a fight is a deal breaker in a relationship either. But I would suggest that having a fight (in terms of the above list) is a big warning sign, rather than an indication that everything is normal. I'm also not saying one shouldn't enjoy dramas. Just keep in mind that they're not always going to be as realistic as an autobiographical story. ;)

Have a fight > Reconcile > Relationship gets stronger, this is how romance in popular media is often portrayed, but it is a demonstrably bad example for real life romance. Having a fight and then breaking up is much more true to real life, as is having a fight, reconciling, and then having the same fight all over again ad nauseam.

In real life, when people in a relationship successfully work through a fight, the stages tend to go more like: Have a fight > Reconcile > Spend time and effort to strengthen their bonds > Relationship gets stronger. But with this model, you can just cut out the Fight and Reconcile steps entirely and be just as happy.

People often have differences, but there are ways to resolve differences that don't equal having a fight. But those methods aren't dramatic, and drama drives sales of romance media.

I still really like the main couple, but I'm feeling less and less like cheering on the side romance. Maybe it's just me, and maybe it makes me a bad person, but my reaction is slowly changing from "Yeah, come on!" to "Shyeeeah... Come O~onnn."

Do I get a virus if I respond to this?

I'm not sure I understand the reference, but I don't think so...

hi hi

I created an account just to say this, but: Have you ever heard people shouting at the top of their lungs in a stairwell? I have. There aren't even any fire doors separating the stairwell from the hallways. Half the building now knows intimate details about their relationships.

(Of course, there are other things I could say too, but they've already been said.)